[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231031125737.0d9a648e@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2023 12:57:37 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>
Cc: Ahmed Zaki <ahmed.zaki@...el.com>, Alexander H Duyck
<alexander.duyck@...il.com>, mkubecek@...e.cz, andrew@...n.ch,
willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com, Wojciech Drewek
<wojciech.drewek@...el.com>, corbet@....net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, jesse.brandeburg@...el.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com, horms@...nel.org, vladimir.oltean@....com,
Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>, intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org,
pabeni@...hat.com, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next v4 1/6] net: ethtool: allow
symmetric-xor RSS hash for any flow type
On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 18:13:20 +0200 Gal Pressman wrote:
> Sure, IIUC, ice's implementation does a:
> (SRC_IP ^ DST_IP, SRC_IP ^ DST_IP, SRC_PORT ^ DST_PORT, SRC_PORT ^ DST_PORT)
>
> Our implementation isn't exactly xor, it is:
> (SRC_IP | DST_IP, SRC_IP ^ DST_IP, SRC_PORT | DST_PORT, SRC_PORT ^ DST_PORT)
>
> The way I see it, the xor implementation should be clearly documented,
> so no one uses the same flag with a different implementation by mistake.
Got it, thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists